Gay marriage? It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, Its not about expanding marriage, its about destroying marriage.

That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a meaningless piece of paper or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting its a universal human right. Theyve figured out what, say, terrorist-turned-educator Bill Ayers did  that, when it comes to destroying core civilizational institutions, trying to blow them up is less effective than hollowing them out from within.

On the other hand, there are those who argue its a victory for the powerful undertow of bourgeois values over the surface ripples of sexual transgressiveness: Gays will now be as drearily suburban as the rest of us. A couple of years back, I saw a picture in the paper of two chubby old queens tying the knot at City Hall in Vancouver, and the thought occurred that Western liberalism had finally succeeded in boring all the fun out of homosexuality.

Which of these alternative scenarios  the demolition of marriage or the taming of the gay  will come to pass?

My daughter works in a nursing home with a lot of residents who have dementia of one type or another. She was telling me last night that one woman keeps saying she is going to call the law on her daughter because she is living with a guy she isn’t married to. I told my daughter that it used to be against the law to cohabit with someone of the opposite sex if you weren’t married. She thought that was pretty funny.

Item #2 should not be overlooked, because it involves two aspects: (A) Limbaugh invited him, and (B) Elton John accepted the invitation.

When I got home I did some research and found some very interesting articles linked in the Google search on "Elton John, Rush Limbaugh." Among other things, Elton John says that Rush Limbaugh is very different off the air ... and he even suggests that Limbaugh (while he will never admit it publicly) is a supporter of "gay marriage."

As I've been pointing out for years, the conservative movement hasn't done well, since Limbaugh has been dominant. It's not all his fault, but I don't think he's helped.

42
posted on 03/30/2013 6:20:03 AM PDT
by Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)

“That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a meaningless piece of paper or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting its a universal human right.”

Indeed. It’s ultimately all about replacing the natural family with the intrusive and totalitarian state.

Actually, I must admit that the conservative movement has done pretty well since Limbaugh hit the airwaves in 1987, all things considered.

Remember that in his heyday, he was a satirist first and foremost. His great skill was in taking liberal idiocy and exposing it to good-hearted, entertaining ridicule. Once he gets off that track, he's nothing more than a political hack with a great radio voice.

“Agreed. No-fault divorce law effectively negated the marriage contract transforming it into a meaningless piece of paper -this while as well giving government free reign over what was at one time individual rights government could not infringe upon unless there was proven some higher necessity.

Now all one has to do is file some papers and the courts step in and start making decisions that in effect cut the matrimonial baby in half before the baby is even declared dead. No-fault divorce is akin to marriage abortion where only one party has a ‘choice’ and all others must simply bend to the will of that imposed by the force of government.”

I don’t support the idea of unending and unconditional unions . But in the case of marriage the union is not unending as it is certant to end with the natural death of a party.

Strictly speaking it could also end with the maturity of the child & grandchild. But that may be more problematic than its worth.

"Economics were a basic reason marriage endured, and sugar-daddy Uncle Sam removed that (the effects of this could especially be seen in the breakdown of the black family). Removing children from the equation (or lack of regard for children in a marriage) was the final straw."

You may be right on that frount too, I must admit I was thinking about it when writing my post.

Anther key change is the growth of women in the work place which has created further financial Independence from men & families coinciding with the break down of the family. Wether this proceeds or follows the family break down may be indicative of whether or not its a factor. I suspected originality however given the poor straits many if not most single mothers are in would tend to rule this factor as a by-protect rather than a cause. It is however possible that it is either both or a symptom of the same root cultural change. Our view nonetheless must be broadly focused on the other social, political, and economic changes taking place over this and the proceeding(1 generation) period.

“Anther key change is the growth of women in the work place which has created further financial Independence from men & families coinciding with the break down of the family.”

I think people are re-thinking this, as women realize that their careers are basically a barrier to families; wealthy childless white women can’t be thrilled to work their tails off (with the appropriate taxation) just to see they are subsidizing a new, foreign breed of children who often have stay-at-home moms. I don’t see a solution in the current legal atmosphere (where the men won’t marry anyway), but the results are clear for all to see: a steady decline in the number of Americans of European descent, matched by a steady increase in “Americans” from Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

“I think people are re-thinking this, as women realize that their careers are basically a barrier to families; wealthy childless white women cant be thrilled to work their tails off (with the appropriate taxation) just to see they are subsidizing a new, foreign breed of children who often have stay-at-home moms.”

Indeed what is the point of working & earning weath if you can’t provide for a family you don’t have to provide for?

Nether God, nor nature recognize the earthly possessions of men & women. At the end of the day the only form of real wealth of sonficance is your children(famly). You can’t take your possessions with you when you die, but if you have a large enough family they will go on forever.

” I dont see a solution in the current legal atmosphere (where the men wont marry anyway),”

I didn’t either until I remembered my history after the fall of the roman empire the church took compete control of such matters, continuing the basic functions that allowed people to continue to exist, even as most of civilization collapsed around them.

Even thou our Government works to destroy family and marriage we are still capable of replacing the institution and insisting upon participation in a real(binding) marriage instead.

We cannot do this for the whole of our Civilization, but we can do this for our own families & communities. Time will tear down the rest around us just as time tore down Roman civilization.

But if we remain committed and determined religiously we can survive. Even as the dying culture around us declares us cults and tries to demonize us.

” but the results are clear for all to see: a steady decline in the number of Americans of European descent, matched by a steady increase in Americans from Latin America, Asia, and Africa.”

We both recognize this fact as sad evidence of the fall of our civilization, just as we recognized the reason for this fall. But we should not be so depressed by the results of theses values as to ignore the very clear implication of their self-extermination.

nether we nor our families have to take part in this cultural suicide. We can encourage large families and insist upon real bonds of matrimony.

In the end we and our children should rest assured that the leftist will wipe themselves and hoses foolish enough to follow them out in a few more generations. We will at last be joined by others with at least comparable believes as the survivers of this insanity.

Good points. I don’t see the influx of immigrants itself as a problem; we really are a nation built on this. The problem arises when you see how they are assimilated (when they are assimilated at all); many are simply flocking here for the freebies, and the American Dream (work hard and succeed) has nothing to do with it.

The problem arises when you see how they are assimilated (when they are assimilated at all); many are simply flocking here for the freebies, and the American Dream (work hard and succeed) has nothing to do with it.

I would be less vehemently opposed to immigration if I was confident that the children of those immigrants would be taught our founding principles and why they should be respected.

But it was obvious the fix was in when the stated goal became a "multicultural" society as opposed to a multiethnic one.

“I would be less vehemently opposed to immigration if I was confident that the children of those immigrants would be taught our founding principles and why they should be respected. But it was obvious the fix was in when the stated goal became a “multicultural” society as opposed to a multiethnic one.”

Your issue should be with the enemy within; these people are being welcomed by “Americans” determined to see this country re-made into a Marxist utopia. There has always been dissent in this country, but since the 1960s the dissenters have been steadily winning.

The liberal elites’ goal is not to have gays be able to marry - their goal is to destroy marriage. As you say most gays don’t want to ‘marry’ anyhow...so that’s not the issue.

Going Galt must include cultural suicide. Europeans are doing it - they’re not having children - they’re not willing to condemn offspring to the hollowness of liberal-land existence.

It’s what we need to do too. Without us propping up systems used by liberal elites, they’ll lose power. All the ‘undocumented Democrats’ (illegal aliens) won’t leave them in power once we and what would have been “ours’ are gone. It’ll be horrible, but ‘our children’ won’t have to be here...

Steyn is so often right on the mark, although I am not quite so pessimistic about the American culture in general as he is. It is a very good thing to take into account his insights and information when trying to explain to others why you don't support "marriage equality"...

Maybe I'll forward this to Senator Portman? (couldn't hurt, lol!)

60
posted on 04/06/2013 3:11:12 PM PDT
by 88keys
("This is no time to go wobbly"....)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.